Looking at the question of 'will USA gain a relative economical advantage' is missing the point - it IS clear that there are certain economic disadvantages - ensuring that our children have a decent world left will have some costs.

Looking at the question of 'will USA gain a relative economical advantage' is missing the point - it IS clear that there are certain economic disadvantages

Agreed, and I feel that the economic disadvantages have been grossly overstated: for example, a pundit on the BBC suggested that with Kyoto compliance it would take the UK until 2056 to achieve the same level of prosperity it would otherwise attain in 2053. I suspect there's grounds for error there, but that it's not far from the truth.

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

He goes on to explain that many important scientific discoveries have been in direct conflict with the consensus. So please, let's not use the word "consensus" in this context. Discuss warming trends (there's some hard data you can point to), anthropic influence and other real topics, but science is not a popularity game. If you talk about consensus, you're only talking about politics, not science.

For my part, I have no fundamental problem with the idea behind Kyoto, though a) I think there are better places to spend time and money that would save more lives (e.g. reducing chemical toxic waste dumping) and b) the details of the treaty are almost certainly a mass of political potatoes that are getting lobbed around for individual gain, so one should not be too quick to judge its detractors.

I've still not been sold on anthropic warming, but I'd welcome more debate in the US on emissions. At the very least it's not a bad idea to keep our emissions under control with an eye toward air quality (though keep in mind that air quality isn't necissarily served by a focus on CO2 levels).

I'm sorry Aaron, I stopped reading when you started quoting Michael Crichton. He's an author, and a bad author of trashy airport thrillers at that. He's not a scientist (in fact he studied Anthropology. Bleuchhh) and his conspiracy theories about climate change have been comprehensively debunked here [realclimate.org] and here [realclimate.org], amongst other [columbia.edu] places [wikipedia.org].

I guess you didn't find the time to read much on RealClimate.org as you said you'd try to do? or do you disagree with what's said there?

That's too bad because what I quoted above is quite true. Science is not about consensus, it's about fact. Politics is about consensus.

No, sorry, we use a consensus of scientists as informative because we are not scientists ourselves. I, and 99.99% of other people, want and need to know about of issues like climate change, but have no way of analyzing the data and knowing ourselves because we are not climatologists spending their whole lives doing this sort of thing. But we can look at polls of scientists to learn for ourselves. This is imperfect, I agree, but it's the only way to do things short of all us quitting our jobs and becoming climatologists.

Second, you could use this argument to justify absolutely anything. If all you have to do to disprove a scientific finding was to simply say "all these scientists might be wrong" then you could disprove absolutely any scientific finding. So, how can you use it against one particular scientific finding and not (literally) all of the others? Logically, it applies with equal force. If you want to believe this, logically the only thing you can do is live in some world of Cartesian doubt where the only thing you can know is that you exist because you have thought. Everything you see even with your own eyes could, maybe, conceivably be an illusion somehow... so that means, if motivated, you can conclude that everything you see is an illusion, right?

While it is true that it is conceivably possible in some way that the consensus of scientists is totally wrong, how likely is that this is going to happen? Possibility != likelihood. In the past, in modern science, when virtually all of the given scientists studying the same hard science subject believed something, how often were they wrong? (And, by comparison, how often were the people with vested interests opposing them wrong?) It's, you know, possible that there's going to be some great Galilean revolution awaiting this field, but if you find that compelling enough to withhold any conclusions, then you can't conclude anything about anything scientific.

While it is true that "many important scientific discoveries have been in direct conflict with the consensus" what is the relative likelihood that this is true for any given scientific finding? Let's be scientific. You can't conclude anything by looking at only one corner of a 2x2 contingency table [cia.gov]. Let's call the consensus of modern scientists on a topic of their expertise A and let's call the opinion of a few motivated non-experts B. If A or B is wrong, we'll call it !A and !B, respectively. All you're saying is that !A & B is possible, or non-zero, which is certainly true. So, what are the relative probabilities of (!A & B), (!B & A), (!B & !A) and (A & B)? Note that every cell is possible. !A and !B is possible -- it's possible that scientists and nonexperts are both wrong. (A & B may equal zero when A and B are contraries.) So, we just might as well conclude them true, right? But these four possibilities cannot be true at the same time, so you have to pick one, and I suggest you do so not by looking at only one cell and deciding whether it's non-zero, but based on the relative likelihood of all four cells comparatively.

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had

Michael Crichton is a pretty decent novelist, but this is a strikingly dumb remark. No, the consensus is not always right.

Sure the US might gain some short-term benefits, but as Oil becomes more and more rare, it will turn out that those nations that prepared for it (by actually *gasp* conserving energy) will be at a huge advantage.

Just look at some random street, the vast majority of minivans, SUVs, pickups, etc. have just one single person in them. Would it really be so terrible if those would drive compacts instead? (Maybe with a trailer on those rare occasions where you really need to take so much st

I'm sorry, but saying that a totalitarian regime like China will follow anyone's example is just silly. The US should either accept or reject the Kyoto protocol based upon its own merits. Not make decisions based upon a fanciful notion that China or India are so full of respect for anything the US does that they will follow along.

This is not about respect or whether they will listen or not. This is about profit. Be it either financial or other means.

No, China gives a damn about what the US wants or says. But they will give a lot of thought about technological and economical advantages the US will gain over them. Make a market for clean energy and they will want to participate.

Um, if you look, China is rapidly opening itself up to the rest of the world, which is following the example of the western world. Clearly they DO follow people's examples.

China and every other struggling nation can't afford to make cuts in pollution. America and the rest of the developed world can, and so it's our duty to. We're all in this together, acting like a spoiled primadonna helps no-one.

It's not "acting like a spoiled primadonna", but rather insisting on fairness, and that means the entire world participating. Otherwise, it's a sham that unfairly targets the U.S. This may be the only issue where I somewhat agree with the Bush administration. Either the whole world is in it, or it's a no-go.

Insisting on fairness? Ok... maybe the US should give 0.7% of its GDP to developing nations as it has promised to do, instead of giving the 0.1% it does now. That would be fair. Or, maybe, the US should give MOST of its GDP to poorer countries, as that would be EVEN FAIRER.

Back to the issue at hand - something has to be done now. The US is polluting more than any other nation on Earth, and more than most continents. Expecting to treat some struggling nation gripped by a military coup or millions of people starving the same way as a secured, comfortable, prosperous nation is so selfish it's beyond words. No-one was pestering the US to follow environmental treaties when IT was developing, but now you want to force those on other developing nations? THAT seems grossly unfair to me. Of course, I'm looking at a global picture, not one with myself in the middle looking amorously at a SUV;)

We should be a shining example with breathable air and water coming out of the tailpipes of our cars. And they will WANT to follow the example.

I do believe that clean energy will mean lots of cash in the future. If SOMEONE manages to make big bucks with it everyone else will follow. That is in the nature of humans. The problem is someone needs the cojones to INVEST first. And we really can't expect underdevelopped countries to do the investing, right?

"Canada, one of the treaty's first signatories, has no clear plan for reaching its target emission cuts. Far from cutting back, its emissions have increased by 20% since 1990."

"And Japan is also unsure it will be able to meet its legal requirement to slash emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012."

So when 2012 rolls around and none of the countries has actually reduced emmisions, what's the penalty for not meeting the "legal requirements"?

I know the US has taken a lot of flack for not signing on, but I have to wonder what it means to sign the treaty when you know you can't meet the requirements, much less even have a plan. At least the US was honest enough to admit they couldn't (wouldn't?) do it.

To paraphrase: "It's best if opponents in a war adhere to some basic ground rules of humanity and decency. However, there's no practical way to enforce such rules. Instead, the Geneva Signatories agree to adhere to such rules. The penalty for breaking the rules is that your opponent is now also allowed to break the rules--against you, the instigator--without fear of censure or retaliation by the other Geneva Signatories. You don't like it? Don't break the rules. Oh, and it should be obvious that non-signatories are entitled to No Geneva Protection At All."

It is, in fact, a core principle of the Geneva Convention that Signatories are entitled to retaliate IN KIND against terrorist attacks, nuclear/chemical/biological attacks, attacks against civilian populations, assassinations, torture of POWS[1], etc.

And at the same time, the Convention places no restrictions on initiating such attacks against non-Signatories (although other treaties and basic human decency may do so).

In fact, the Saddam Regime, not being Signatory to the convention, was a legitimate target for U.S. nuclear attacks, under the Geneva Convention.

The Convention was designed to encourage civilized nations to fight limited wars that both sides could conceivably recover from, once peace had been reestablished. Those who would prefer a "no holds barred" approach to warfare should expect no coverage from the Convention. Likewise, Signatories are not restricted by the Convention when warring with non-Signatories.

In reality, of course, the U.S. has been remarkably restrained, when measured against what both the spirit and the letter of what the Geneva Convention requires.

Personally, I think the Geneva Convention is an excellent treaty. I'm quite glad that the U.S. is signatory to it, and I believe it should be a model for other treaties.

Perhaps a "Kyoto Convention", that promoted good behavior amongst signatories, while promising non-signatories nothing more than a sharp stick in the eye, would make more sense.

On the other hand, maybe not. Nobody wants to be the first person to start playing nice. There's no way the U.S. (or China, or India, or Brazil, or anybody else) is going to seriously cripple their own economy unless they have some reasonable assurance that all the other nations will also scale back their economies, to preserve the relative status quo of geopolitical power.

Since the Kyoto Protocol explicitly promises the exact opposite: certain nations get a free pass, while others must scale back to some degree, the agreement was never going to get full support.

(And what the hell kind of plan is that, anyway? The world will suddenly become a happy place full of flowers and cheerful songs, once China becomes the dominant economic power--and the dominant polluter--in the world? Do you really think the Chinese government will be more sympathetic to the demands of the global environmentalists than the U.S. government is?)

==========[1] Now, I'm not a big fan of torture, Geneva-sanctioned or not, and I think it's one of those things that shouldn't be indulged in even when permitted by the Geneva Convention. My point is, the Geneva Convention does permit torture against non-signatories. It also permits torture against signatories who first violate the Convention. In fact, it even permits torture against signatories who haven't violated the Convention, with the caveat that they are then free of their Convention commitment to not practice torture against you.

It's a starting point. Much more needs to be done. But the US is not even willing to make a start. As of now, India and China combined emit about 14% of the world's CO2 (it was a lot lower when the treaty was being negotiated and India's share is still low), while the US all by itself emits 25%

It isn't a start. Cutting energy production is always tough on the economy. The US went through this in the late 70's, and most people remember how miserable that was.

The US would need to make some serious sacrifices [janegalt.net] to obey Kyoto. Keep in mind that most of the US lives much, much more sparsely than Europeans. They are not (for the most part) crowded into dense polluted cities. They are spead out over rual areas with clean air, clean water, and blue skies. Now they hear this:

"We MUST reduce emissions now! Before we destroy the planet!"

We've been hearing this sort of thing for three decades now. Eco distaster is always just around the corner. We are always near the tipping point, close to the point of no return. Horror is coming!

But it hasn't. I don't think people are being unreasonable when they conclude that people are crying wolf. Environmental scientists have been wearing a sign that says "THE END IS NEAR" for thirty years, and people are just used to it. Every single weather event is treated as "proof" that we are near cataclyism. Its a bad winter! Its a mild winter! Tsunami! All blamed on global warming.

Despite the dire claims, we have yet to see any REAL environmental disaster. Nothing truly spectacular has happened (not on the scale the doomsayers have been predicting) and now we get Kyoto.

Here is what the average American can plainly see:

The air and water seem pretty good. Weather seems normal.

Kyoto WOULD create a nasty economic downturn. Everyone over 30 can remember the last one, and it wasn't pretty. Worse, the Kyoto downturn would be PERMANENT.

Europeans dislike us, some HATE us, maybe they don't have our best interests at heart with this thing?

Keep in mind you must pursuade these people to do something that is not in their best interests (in the short term). Kyoto would hurt the US more than anyone else, and its citizens see less need for it than anyone else. It's a tough sell. Arguments of "Americans are selfish and stupid" are not likely to pursuade.

Glaciers have been going away for the last 14,000 years in North America. Glacier National Park 14,000 would have been all the way down to Missoula Montana and into Wyoming. Glaciers shrink and the grow all over the World, the BBC piece with the photos "illustrating the change" are simply "best of show" pictures.

There are 160,000 glaciers in the world, over 65,000 of them have been inventoried and only a handful of those have been studied. They have tracked the mass increase and decrease for only about 100 of the 160,000 glaciers for five or more years

More evidence, Ross Ice Streams in West Antarctica is increasing at 26.8 gigatons per year, according to Science 295: 476-80

Now people like to throw out that there will be more dangerous storms from GCC, someone from a US Congressman's Office on Monday used that as an arguement in my Geology class, well, for example, Hurricanes are not increasing in thier strikes against the US, nor in thier force. We might be inline for a good decade for 2000-2009, but it needs to pick up to match 1940-1949

You have been hearing it from a few for a long time. Now you are hearing from a majority of respectable scientists.

A theory doesn't get to be more correct/accurate just because more and more people are repeating it... And I have a hard time respecting scientists mindlessly repeating this without actually bothering to look at the facts and keep the basic scientific methods in mind.

Now, let's just take a brief look at things...

We know very little about natural climate variations. That they happened is about all we know. Why they happened are the bigger and much more interesting question. But even the climate-changing giant meteor that 'killed the dinosaurs' is subject of much dispute on every level. And for some reason almost all these 'respectable scientists' insist on the energy input from the Sun being irrelevant and without significance... Yet without it the Earth would be a very cold place indeed. So the Sun is a very significant element in our climate and we know very little about the periodic instabilities in the nuclear processes up there, so that's another bit of shaky ground.

We know very little about the complex balances in the atmosphere and we're far from knowing with any certainty that additional CO2 will increase the apparent greenhouse effect. It may even decrease it!

The 'ancient' meteorological data is full of inaccuracies and you cannot 'measure' (calculate) a 0.5 degree change based on data that's only accurate to +/- 2.0 degrees. Yet this is done even by the UN people!

There's no viable alternatives to most of the CO2-producing technologies. Solar and Wind power is useless for anything but a nice supplement to a core technology that sustains business and city consumption without fail. Cars that run on anything but gas are still more or less on the prototype stage, and airplanes are not even on the drawing boards. We simply cannot give up our CO2-producing technologies yet!

Anyway... Make up your own mind.

IMHO: If it was costless to be on the safe side then by all means do that! - But it isn't costless. Quite the opposite. The CO2 reductions could easily cost many times the combined global GNP plus lower the stage of civilization in many places. And all this based on very uncertain theories... I say it's not worth it. Not yet anyway.

We need more absolute evidence that we are affecting the climate before we even should consider doing anything more than thinking about new ways to build the next generation of cars, airplanes, power plants etc.

On the other hand, building alternative energy production capability, and selling equipment with lower energy usage (or investing in research for the same), might very well pay off handsomely. If the US had chosen to invest the money wasted on the war in Iraq on lowering its energy usage, not by raising prices or forcing people out of their cars, but simply by creating machinery that requires less energy and stimulating its use, and of course by building alternative energy sources, the country would be a lot better off at this point. You would be mostly free from the middle east, and you would be a world leader in new, clean technology. Of course the same is true for Europe, and I hope one day soon we will get leaders who understand this.

So this is not just about getting hurt. It is about new opportunities, for anyone willing to invest. The first major economy to realize this will have a golden future, being able to export its knowledge and equipment world wide while being largely independent from middle eastern oil.

Chances are this woulnd't end well for those currently in power in the middle east, but it could be argued that that power structure is an aberration caused by oil in the first place, and doesn't in fact benefit the majority of people living in the area. In other words, when oil money runs out we may see a few revolutions, followed by a more normal, stable situation.

Kyoto WOULD create a nasty economic downturn. Everyone over 30 can remember the last one, and it wasn't pretty. Worse, the Kyoto downturn would be PERMANENT.

In the economy there is no such thing as a permanent upturn or downturn.

Europeans dislike us, some HATE us, maybe they don't have our best interests at heart with this thing?

In any group that is large enough you will find people who hate just about anything, but on the whole "europeans" don't hate americans. Please do forgive us for being suspicious about your leaderships' goals, though.
Arguments of "Americans are selfish and stupid" are not likely to pursuade.

To summarize:

- No more grovelling towards the arab world.

- Significant expenditure in research will tremendously boost the economy.

- Significant expenditure in new, clean power plants (both big, like fusion, and small, like wind farms) also boost the economy. Wind farms are small enough to be owned by individuals.

- Export of new-found knowledge brings in further cash.

It is all a matter of perspective. You say "problem", I say "opportunity".

And if you are wondering how you should pay for all that research and all that new equipment, well somehow the billions for the war in Iraq were also found and this is, quite frankly, much more important.

Why is it that, on one hand, we hear from Kyoto detractors that Kyoto is a "joke" and then the same people recognize how much of a sacrafice we'd have to make to obey it. Seems to me that it is not, in fact, a joke. Rather, it is something very serious. It is a start.

Keep in mind that most of the US lives much, much more sparsely than Europeans. They are not (for the most part) crowded into dense polluted cities.

WHile it might be true that US citizens are less densley packed than Europeans, the majority of Americans live in metropolitan areas and not in rural areas. Also, European cities, with the exception of Paris, seem much cleaner than most American cities. Maybe there is some major underlying polution that I am just not aware of, but as far as I can tell, they are pretty darn clean compared to New York, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etc.

Despite the dire claims, we have yet to see any REAL environmental disaster.

And we probably won't see a singular disaster. The environment has been, and will continue to be in gradual decline as underground water tables dwindle, atmospheric CO2 rises, rainforests get slashed and burned, etc, etc etc. Just because many people (including you, apparently) have misinterpretted the warnings as pronouncements of imminent doom, doens't mean they are invalid.

The air and water seem pretty good. Weather seems normal.

In post-industrial nations, yes. This is largely true. But guess why it is this way. Because of environmentalists making a fuss about it. Although the air and water could be cleaner. We still have work to do. Why is it that I shouldn't eat fish out of Lake Michigan or the Mississppi River? These are major fresh water ways and we woudln't be wise to eat or drink directly from them. Everyone knows these water ways are full of pollution.

Kyoto WOULD create a nasty economic downturn. Everyone over 30 can remember the last one, and it wasn't pretty. Worse, the Kyoto downturn would be PERMANENT.

Gee, talk about doom and gloom. Economic disaster is right around the corner if we enact stricter environmental standards! Oh no! Permanent Great Depression ahead! Whatever you do, don't act in an environmentally responsible manner! What you don't seem to realize is that the economy survived the major environmental regulations of the 70's. Our cars are MUCH cleaner. It was tough, but we did it. We are all better off for it. But we can't stop now. THere are many more improvements to be made.

I seem to recall a time in history when industry leaders insisted that if we enact child labor laws, the economy would suffer horribly and permanently. BUt here we are today with our children enjoying their childhoods without needing to work for peanuts in sweatshops. Yeah, maybe some industries found it difficult at first to get by without cheap child labor. It was the same way with slavery in the South. Southerners felt that slavery was necessary for economic survival. But eventually it worked out. And we are better off for it. The environment is very much the same, IMO. Environmentalists are the modern day abolitionists even if they do lack some of the moral imperitive.

Let me put it this way--the GP had a POINT. It will NEVER persuade an American that you are right if you sit around (or walk around--your preference) telling them how ignorant, arrogant, and selfish they are. I recognize that in some countries it is not uncommon to get into rather heated discussions where name calling is acceptable (and even expected), but in the US, such is frowned upon in business (/. doesn't count), and by professionals.

Personally, I think that if you had paid attention, you would have realized that what was being said is important. Most of us living in the US are NOT living in high-population density areas. The weather has not changed significantly in 30+ years (lifespan or more for many of us), and there is little evidence that it will (from a practical, hey it's 20 degrees C below today in Miami FL. type of perspective).

You want to convince mainstream America living in Podunk Iowa that global warming is important AND that the economic downturn resulting from accepting the Kyoto treaty is worthwhile? Then you need to figure out first how to get and maintain, the interest of the Americans who count. Our folks in Congress know political suicide when they see it, and anything that hurts the economy is likely to be political suicide. It takes serious support from voters (who are fickle at best) AND some serious courage for them to go against the grain.

BTW, many Americans view Europeans as arrogant, snobbish types, but we all know that there are arrogant, ignorant pricks on both sides of the pond. Laters.

Ah, the old "they're not doing it, so there's no point me doing it" attitude...

Look, it's perfectly simple. The more countries sign up, the better. Yes, it would be preferable to get every country in the world to sign up and adhere to the treaty, but that's not going to happen right away. Failing that, the more the better. Even if a couple of major polluters don't sign up, those that do can still make a positive difference.

Hey, not everyone obeys inconvenient laws like not killing people, not stealing stuff, not dumping toxic waste into rivers, and so on - that doesn't mean that no-one should bother.

India/China/Brazil are not in Kyoto as per head of population they do not contribute as much towards to Carbon dioxide problem as Western nations. The only so called industrialized nations not signed up to Kyoto are the US and Australia.

Australia is the one that amuses me, their PM's statement

"Until such time as the major polluters of the world including the United States and China are made part of the Kyoto regime, it is next to useless and indeed harmful for a country such as Australia to sign up"

Especially when their leading oppposition party states that

Australia is the world's worst greenhouse gas polluter per capita because of its heavy use of coal-burning power stations.

The arguement that because so and so aren't doing it, why should we, is not only childish, but considering stances against some countries for not commiting to certain agreements, it seems down right hypocritical.

And two wrongs make a right? Rather than sinking down to the level of others, how about taking the high ground and leading by example, or aren't you up to the job? The US is the richest country in the world - there's no excuse.

The Kyoto Protocol is not the last word on this. It was never intended to be. It's a step in the right direction. Much like the Rio Summit was (1992???), where incidentally many countries including the US made promises they immediately went about breaking. The next agreement after Kyoto will undoubtedly try to pull in these developing countries whose economies have grown large enough that they can be considered up to the job. The cynics amongst us would say the Americans wanting to apply the protocol to poor countries is a method to try to keep the poor countries poor and under the American thumb. The US doesn't suffer easily - a bit like a petulant child.

It's time to start working in the right direction with the knowledge that others will be brought in to the fold later.

Other than potentially making a start at ending global warming, which if it happens, and it is an "if", is going to do far more damage to the world both physically and economicly than Kyoto will.

I think a really good test for Americans would be to offer, or maybe compel them to trade their current homes and real estate for an estate several times more valuable on some low lying coastland or better yet a low lying tropical island and see if they are willing to gamble that global warming is a lie.

All in all its waste of time debating U.S. entry in to Kyoto, or even that the U.S. will make any significant investment in weaning itself from complete dependence on coal because with the current political regime its go a snow balls chance in hell. Even if the U.S. rejects Kyoto which there are valid reasons to reject, it should still solve its addiction to fossil fuels and there is an indisputable case for doing that.

But no, Kyoto is inevitably going to end up one of American's expansive land fills probably outside of Washingtoon D.C. alongside the Geneva conventions, the ABM treaty, U.S. law against torture, the rule of law, the Constitution and it appears very soon the global test ban treaty [counterpunch.org].

There is irony that as the U.S. tries to dictate to nation after nation that thou shalt not develop nuclear weapons the U.S. is in fact developing new ones, is going to test them in violation of treaty, and in the case of the new nuclear bunker busters is almost inevitably going to start using them to kill people for the first time since World War II. When the U.S. takes the first step off that slippery slope the world is going to become a VERY dangerous place.

"The extend of this can be debated, but hold it to be true that some progress has been made."

It certainly is a subject for debate. Just because an election was held proves next to nothing. There is still a high probability that the Shia majority is just bideing its time until the constitution is written, the next elections are held which the Shia's will win, which the Shia will always win being 60% of the population and being an extremely cohesive voting block. Sistani issued a Fatwah compelling his large block of Shia's to vote which is why they did in such large numbers, the voted because they knew they would win the power they've been denied so long by doing so.

Sunni turnout was in fact dismal, they are shut completely out of power unless the Shia and Kurd's throw them crumbs, and this insures the Sunni insurgency will continue unabated which it has.

Once the Shia have cemented their hold on power, they can then tell the U.S. to get its troops out and the U.S. will either:

- Have to withdraw its troops in deference to Iraq's sovereign will and its Democraticly elected government- Say no, leave its troops there and the elections the Republican's are so proud of are then proven to be a sham

You see the U.S. really only likes Democracies when they vote the way the White House wants them to. If they don't the U.S. really isn't that big a supporter of the concept.

Assuming the U.S. withdraws the Shia are then free to institute an Islamic theocracy and align themselves with Iran. Women will most probably be oppressed under Islamic law more like they were under the Taliban than the relative freedoms they enjoyed under Saddam's secular state, and in fact already are more oppressed than they were in most areas. Christians and Jews also enjoyed some tolerance for their religion under Saddam and are generally being forced to leave Iraq as it swings hard towards fundementalist Islamic state.

Meanwhile the Kurd's in the north are also voting en masse and trying to secure as much power as they can get at the ballot box and as much territorial control they can of the oil fields around Kirkuk. They are also bidding their time and waiting patiently. When the opport

India, China and Brazil are involved in Kyoto. They have an exemption until 2012, after that they are required to begin cutting emmisions.

However, I've been reading several news stories lately about China already putting in place several projects to cut current Greenhouse Gas emissions. They've recently cancelled many Government projects due to environmental concerns.

According to Greenpeace China's campaign director Lo Sze Ping, "[the] observation is that, compared with the 1980s, 1990s, the Chinese

You hit the nail right on the head. In fact, I'd argue that the main reason the US has to go Kyoto is not to save the global environment (because it might already be too late), but to save the US economy. Namely, to force companies that are too focused on their next quarterly results to save themselves.

Instead of complaining about the cost of Kyoto on the US economy, maybe US politicians should ask themselves why EU politicians are in favor of Kyoto. Seriously, do you really believe it's because they care about the environment? Or even their constituencies? Do you really expect them to be less sold out to Big Business than in the US?Something tells me their backers did the math.

The US *has* to reduce its energy consumption lest it faces utter economic ruin in the coming decades. Right now, the US is burning twice as much energy per capita as the EU or Japan.If you didn't know already, the EU is a larger economy than the US, and both the EU's and Japan's industrial sector are larger as a share of GDP than the US's. The US must be doing something seriously wrong somewhere.

When Peak Oil comes, the EU and Japan will have decades of technical and organizational expertise in energy efficience behind them. They will be able to bear the burden, as they will be thoroughly prepared.

The US on the other hand will have to reinvent itself completely in only a couple years. Even cities will have to be rebuilt from the ground up (try doing that 100 mile daily commute in a world where gasoline is 10x more expensive than it is today). They will have to build extensive public transportation systems that do not exist right now. And all this right at the time the foreign debt crisis hits.

To put it in a nutshell, it is going to make the 30's look like a walk in the park.And it's going to suck even more when all the equipment needed to adapt the US has to be imported from China or the EU and paid in overly-expensive yuans or euros because no US company even cared about the looming disaster when it was still time.

On the other hand, it the US does get its act together and starts saving energy in earnest soon, then it might manage to pull it off.

If the war on terrorism is to continue then decreasing our reliance on oil (which comes from the Middle East) should be a priority.

There is no denying that oil revenue undoubtably finds its way into the hands of those that wish evil against the US. Clean technologies reduce our need to funnel more money into that part of the world.

Mod Parent up. Hemp's possibilities in manufacturing are starting to be re-discovered. I know that Europe, Canada and the UK are starting to embrace hemp into their economies. The US has remained a little in the dark. I think hemp is still illegal to grow in the US. In other countries Hemp is being used for food, paper, clothes , plastics, etc... The best thing is that it grows like a weed. Forgive the pun and don't get Hemp confused with it's sister plant. Hemp needs very little chemicals to allo

I agree. The cost of maintaining a stable oil supply should be factored in with the price of oil. There has to be some sort of bell curve at which cheap oil is not so cheap when defense spending, lives etc are factored in to the cost.

Unfortunately, Oil makes a lot of money and so does Military contracting, and Weapons Sales. Take Halliburton for instance. Their subsidaries are in Oil and Military contracting. Which means that Oil rich areas that are unstable are great Money makers. Great for the business's and economies that trade thouse commodities. Bad for the people that live there or get sent there.

Moving to energy independence would be a dramatic shift in our economy. I am sure there are many parties that do not welcome that shift as it would not profit their interests. They will try everything they can to slow the shift to renewable/independent energy.

Trusting people who have MBA's? Obviously all those with MBA's who ran or observed Enron got a free pass that day! In fact there is an amazing level of consensus as far as global warming is concerned, and the differences within the mainstream scientific community are about levels of dgree, not whethr humans are causing the warming in the first place. The problem with relying on the judgment of those in the business community is that they are in the business of making a profit, and often this makes them t

The IPCC report summaries are written by bureaucrats, not by the researchers who did the work. If a 'scientific consensus' can be established only by ignoring those who disagree and condemming them if they dare to speak out, then we need a new term.

The difference between government-supported science in the U.S. today and in the USSR in the 1930s and 1940s is that Lysenko could send a dissenter to the Gulag, while today's grant committees can only destroy his career.

...who is funded by Exxon. He's part of the same gang as Soon, Baliunas, LeGates et al either funded by Bush administration, American Petroleum Institute, the coal industry or whatever...

On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of thousands of real scientists (not just people dubbing themselves 'doctor' or 'climatologist' or whatever), who all seem to agree that yes, the globe is warming at an alarming rate and that it

That doesn't make him wrong. He doesn't pretend to be a scientist (he isn't a scientist). What he does is show that many of the statistics presented by the environmental movement are flawed. And, yes, he is a statistician.

For which he has been criticised beyond belief. The green community has behaved like Bill Gates does towards the open source community, and that's not right.

Just my rant: I'm more green than Mr Lomberg (as a lifelong supporter and donater to Friends of the Earth), but I feel he has been unduly ridiculed for making some very good points.

Part of what is supposed to make Kyoto work is that there will be a big market and alot of money to be made in the buying/trading/selling of carbon emissions. Morning Edition had a great story on the economic backbone of Kyoto [npr.org] but it won't be online till after 10:00am EST. If such a market develops and there are fortunes to be made, you can be sure the Americans will come. If it turns out to be an economic disaster, they won't.

The basic American claim that the treaty is unjust towards wealthier nations, while benefits countries like China and India, is true. There can be no argument that the US would be restricted much more than the #2 consumer of petroleum, China, under Kyoto. The question is, can the will of the world force the US into a position that it views as unjust towards itself? It's a thorny one, but recent history suggest that the United States will not be swayed by foreign legislation. Thus the financial incentive is the best hope of Kyoto ever being ratified by the US.

If Europe wants the US to ratify Kyoto, all they have to do is make the dollars and common sense will follow. One side is right here, and one side isn't. If Europe is right, and this does create a financial windfall, the US will follow. If the US is right, and Europe's economy suffers greatly, they will withdraw from Kyoto.

The basic American claim that the treaty is unjust towards wealthier nations, while benefits countries like China and India, is true.

It is only true if your definition of "just" includes the right of Americans to pollute ten times as much as Chinese and Indians so that they may maintain their already significantly higher standard of living.

The US objection to the treaty is not that there are restrictions, but that the restrictions are applied unevenly. According to what the Bush administration has said, if China and India et al were held to the SAME standard as the US, France, Germany etc, then the US would have ratified the treaty.

oh, well since that's your definition of just, perhaps you'd like your country (and the rest of the 1st world) to stop imposing tariffs on incoming agricultural, steel and other products, to stop demanding that drugs which could save millions are sold at exorbitant prices in the 3rd world, and to cancel the loans made after the colonial period which are leaching away the little money third world countries have?

Or perhaps you want to be treated 'equally' when it suits you?

The world is currently structured in a very unfair way; any truly fair system will therefore be skewed towards those nations who are historically disadvantaged. The reason for involving China et al just now is to get them to the point where they can start to cut pollution, and since they'll be within the system, it'll be easier to persuade them to take the next step.

Frankly I think the non-ratification of the treaty has a lot more to do with the unilateral go it alone against the world spirit of the current administration, along with fear of Chinese (and to a lesser extent Indian) domination of the global economy, than with any so-called concept of 'justice'.

Like many people here, I am a libertarian [lp.org] thus I definitely am opposed to ALL tariffs, both American and foreign, because I believe in complete free trade, not state imposed regulations.

Regarding drug costs in the 3rd world, you think the US legislates that? Those are corporations who are making those choices. I personally support India, which does not honor patents on medicine. I believe medical patents are murder, so I think we agree there as well

You wrote...any truly fair system will therefore be skewed...

We fundamentally disagree here. For me any fair system will NOT be skewed. That is really my definition of fair -- the field is level for everyone, rich and poor, strong and weak. Do the strong win more often than the weak? Yes, if they lost more, they would be the weak.

There can be no argument that the US would be restricted much more than the #2 consumer of petroleum, China, under Kyoto

Hmmm. There is a strong argument: if the climate is changing now, it's because of the high CO2 emissions during the whole 20th century. And most of the CO2 emissions of the 20th century came from the US, Europe, and other industrial countries: not from China or India.
US has to make more efforts now because it has polluted much more in the past.

So let me get this straight, you want the United States to sign a treaty that would require them to buy "points" from other countries just so they can be in compliance with it?

The only country that looks like it will be required to buy points due to unmeetable targets is Japan, having already dealt with its pollution and emissions problems in the 1970s and '80s.

The US has by far the highest emissions output in absolute terms and per capita and it is growing at an alarming rate exceeded by only Canada and Australia, while the rest of the world is reducing theirs. There is plenty of room for reduction there, just no will to do anything about it.

This will be just one more nail in the coffin of US dominance. While other countries are out developing new technologies, we'll continue to drive inefficient vehicles and burn coal for electrical power. Eventually, the rest of the industrialized world will have switched to fuel cells and renewable or nuclear energy, and we'll end up buying our cars and power systems from them.

Nonparticipation in the Kyoto treaty is not synonymous with having no interest in alternative energy technologies. Despite the prevailing PR on the subject, the United States has not vowed to continue business as usual. What they have done is reject a specific agreement which they feel is not in their best interests.

If there is an economic advantage to developing alternative energy sources, and I believe there is, U.S. corporations will be all over it. Power companies aren't oil-lovers. They're money-lovers. And they aren't stupid; they know that the world's oil supply won't last forever, so they're all going to want new business models ready to roll out when oil goes up to a million dollars a barrel. They'll either be developing the new technologies themselves or watching the Europeans very closely.

In summary, Kyoto isn't the end-all of emissions reduction, and it probably won't even be the last international emissions reduction treaty of its kind.

I left this out of the submission cos it looked like there were enough links in there to keep anyone happy for a while...

There is plenty of other news coverage [google.com] of this. As I type this (2pm UK time) it's still the lead story on Murdoch's Sky News satellite TV channel. Although this is known to be generally right of center (by UK standards) the tenor of their reporting is much the same as the BBC's, with respect to the whole "pressure mounts on the USA" aspect, and the fact that the science has reached the status of accepted fact in popular discourse. (I know there are still plenty of areas of legitimate debate, disagreement, and continuing research amongst real scientists, but the basic thesis that anthropogenic CO2 can affect, and IS already affecting global climate is about as solidly accepted as anything gets in the public mind - over here at any rate.

Err, Providing a wikipedia entry to support something like this isn't good considering how biased/wrong wikipedia can be. Especially since this topic has so much to do with USA and this is so controversial in USA (although everyone outside knows the truth) and Wikipedia is virtually controlled by US people (editors).

It would be like invading Iraq. The US would do what it thought was right, regardless of the rest of the world. There would be "consequences" or "pressure" brought to bear, other than to say "we think this is right."

Every time we get a story like this, a bunch of people write in about how global warming isn't happening, or if they accept that, then they write about how it's not certain* that it's caused by us.

Please PLEASE can people like this read the links, and read about the consensus. If they have specific points to rebutt with the evidence then this is interesting (especially if they have training in the area).

I'm not a climate scientist myself and so I feel a bit hestitant about posting anything on these topics. It would be nice if the self-appointed 'experts' who take over these threads would behave in the same way, and let those of us who are interested in learning more read comments from people who actually know what they're talking about. This does not mean you have to agree with Kyoto (it's clearly flawed in some areas), nor that you have to believe that global warming is our fault, but you should have some damn good facts and links!;-)

*of course nothing can ever be proven to be certain in science, only disproven, but you all know what I mean.

I agree. On a related note, this is one of the main drawbacks of Internet discussion forums, mailing lists etc. Everyone acts like an expert and it's almost impossible to tell who is actually an expert and who is just ignorant or pushing his agenda. It's not disastrous when it happens on ordinary forums, but very bad when it happens on sites like Wikipedia which are supposed to inform people or even slashdot (a lot of undecided readers come to slashdot).

There was another scientific theory that attained "scientific consensus," and everyone who was anyone believed that life as they knew it would end if something was not done. As a result, massive programs were undertaken to ensure that this would not happen. Connecticut was the first of the United States to enact laws, in 1896. The Carnegie Institution funded research into solutions starting in 1904. In 1910, a centralized research facility was set up, and in 1924 federal law was passed to further curtai

Firstly, humans aren't special. Clearly it *is* from a *scientific* point of view possible to "improve" the human race by selective breeding. So, you have not proven that the science was bad, merely that when science is applied without recourse to morality, or without carefully consideration of what "improve" really means, then we have a disaster on our hands. The same could be said of atomic bombs, GM etc. It has bugger all to do with whether the science is correct.

We're talking about the country which doesn't admit smoking causes cancer until ~ twenty years after it's proved. Then we don't admit second-hand smoking causes cancer until... wait have we admitted it yet? Wait, we're still using land-mines?

Calling the Kyoto treaty unfair is irrelevant. Pointing out other countries engaging in the same ignorance as our own is irrelevant. The US drags its feet when it comes to international and social issues. I don't know which is more depressing.

I hate to have to keep doing this: This not a troll. This post contains only facts (except the ~ twenty is a guess). If you feel a violent reaction to this post I suggest you start thinking before you post.

Energy usage is a personal thing too you know. You can bitch about the US dragging it's collective feet but my feet are moving now. My electrical consumption in 2001 was 13 MEGA Watt/hours. By 2004 I was down to 2/3rds of that (8.7 MW/h) and is still falling. Every year my energy footprint shrinks as I replace old 80's clunker appliances with new Energy Star ones.

How much brains does it take to spend at little more on an appliance when you can see that it will save you over the long haul? The funny th

theWatt [thewatt.com] has a summary of the important details [thewatt.com]. Basically 127 countries have signed up (but not the US). Countries that have ratified the protocol must reduce emissions (such as CO2, methane, NOx etc) by 5.2% of 1990 levels by 2010, this is expected to be about a 29% cut if Kyoto was not implemented by 2010. If a country exceeds their target, then they can sell carbon credits (at about $30-40/ton in the US and $70-80/ton in Europe), if they're under, they can buy credits.

The second round of Kyoto starts in 2012 and will try to lure in those emerging countries like China and India. The omission of China and India is the big reason why the US isn't going for Kyoto.

Bush will never force the industry of his country (including power generation) to conform to the Kyoto accord. It's bad business.

In fact, he passes laws that relax the current regulations on pollution. His not-so-aptly-named "Clean Skies" initiative allows coal-fired generating stations to increase the amount of pollution they produce in favour of dumping more wattage on the grid.

This sort of behaviour disgusts me. I live in Toronto, and although we have a busy airport and traffic corridor, we don't produce nearly as much pollution as our neighbours to the south. Nanticoke generating station generates enough power for the city of Toronto without running at full capacity. It produces less emmissions than a plant half its size in Detroit. It does this with not-so-new-but-expensive technology that is invested in in favour of oh, say, being able to breathe.

I went down to D.C. recently, and when I left on the plane, looking east, I couldn't tell where the ground ended and the sky began. It was a disgusting layer of brown that looked like it spanned five hundered meters in the air... probably more.

I hope someone manages to bring sanctions against the Bush administration. His lack of regard for anything not minted or drilled or slipped into his pocket is disgusting.

Although the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.), which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Tell me, where were you a couple of weekends ago when we had all those smog warnings? I drove from Toronto to London on the Saturday. The air stank in Toronto and was hazing and foggy with a yellow tinge. It was vile.

For us in Ontario, it's the smog that we can't see or smell that's the bigger problem. I have an in-law who owns a cottage in Rondeau Provincial Park on Lake Erie. I get there and inhale deeply - the air seems so clean and fresh compared with downtown Toronto where I live. In actual fact, it's often more polluted. It's stuff that can't be seen or smelt that has drifted up from the Ohio valley.

Furthermore, as Canadians, or residents of Canada, we have to be very careful about lecturing others, including Americans. Okay, we did ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but we have a lot to do to put our house in order before we can preach to others. You do know that Canadians consume far more energy per capita than Americans, and almost twice as much as other leading industrial countries such as the UK? There's a reason why Canada is lumped in to the "Dirty Three" by the rest of the world (the other two are the US and Australia).

If you believe in what you've written, please get out there and start working on educating others. Evangelise simple things like the use of compact flourescent bulbs. Start campaigning against the crackpot Aliance^WConservatives who are spread lies and FUD and who've been bought by the oil companies in Alberta. Even Ralph Klein as a minister more than 10 years wrote a paper about the benefits to the Alberta economy if they adopted more a environmentally friendly approach - what happened there? BTW, I don't think all of the Conservatives are nutty extremists, although most of them are former PCers.

I think it's better to stick to these agreements in the long run: it is both an intuitive an scientific fact that (oil) supplies will run out sooner or later. If we reach near that point without well-developed alternative technology and infrastructure, that would be a bigger disaster.

It comes at a price perhaps on the short term, but it gives a number of benefits: not only can alternative energy resources potentially come cheaper than conventional ones, it is a given that a worldwide demand for these will grow at some point in the future. Having technology, research and patents ready gives a major economic edge... it is exportable technology after all.

So.. I don't think it will damage the U.S. economy that much within the next 10 years or so, but it will be relatively damaging in the sense that reliance on foreign technology and resources remains.

it is both an intuitive an scientific fact that (oil) supplies will run out sooner or later. If we reach near that point without well-developed alternative technology and infrastructure, that would be a bigger disaster.

Your argument ignores the information-bearing aspect of price, and the dynamic of the market.

As oil supplies run down, price goes up[1]. If demand is also increasing, price goes up even more quickly. As the price of oil rises, the comparative advantage of oil drops[2].

As the comparative advantage of oil drops, the more attractive other fuels become, leading to research into raising the comparative advantage of oil (through efficiency), or more research into other fuels to increase their comparative advantage[3].

This process goes on continuously. As a result, efficiency will rise when it is needed and alternative fuels will come into play when they are needed. There will be no overnight "ohmygodwe'reoutofoil!"

So the question becomes: should we jink with things? I mean, it would be reasonable to assume that artificially raising the price of oil would cause increased investment in either oil efficiency or alternate fuels - we've said as much above.

If we're just considering decreased usage of oil as the only good in the system, then this would make sense. However, if that were already the case then there would be no need to tweak with the price system: the lower demand for inefficient oil-using cars would provide the exact same investment patterns into oil efficiency and alternate fuels!

So the conclusion would then be that people consider other goals within the fuel-burning realm than just the use of oil to be important. If that is the case then optimizing for reduced oil usage would hurt the other goals people have. So the best way to make people happy is to not mess with the price structure and let oil work its way out of the system naturally[4].

[1] - price is not just current-availability over demand, it also incorporates prospective supply and demand.

[2] - when you have a need (energy), you also have a selection of methods with which to fill that need. You choose the one most advantageous to you, so it doesn't matter what the absolute price of fuel is - only how it compares to other fuels.

[3] - let's say that you have 3 fuels: aberhol, bakernol, and crepetol. All other things being equal, if they are $3/kj, $4/kj, and $15/kj, it would make sense to put most of your research dollars into aberhol, followed by bakernol, and almost none into crepetol.

This is the same way as Christian Fundamentalists in Kentucky et al describe Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Quick Summary: Everyone in the world thinks that someone has to be done about pollution. Except the biggest polluter.

Basically this is the same as elements like the Chemical and Biological non-proliferation treaty (objected to by the US), the International Criminal Court (objected to by the US) and a host of other good ideas that the US President objects to because he didn't think them up.

The US Approach of "Build Bigger SUVs and let our kids sort out the mess" is a disgrace to the 21st Century on a par with any other act of wilful destruction that can be conceived. The US is deliberately increasing its pollution rates and refusing to do anything about it. This already causes increases in deaths in the US an abroad due to breathing disorders and toxic poisoning.

And if its about the economy, how about trimming that massive debt George ?

As far as they go, predictions of energy use have been completely, utterly atrocious when they have been done for periods of 30 years. I think if the US DOE (and all the industrialized nations' counterparts) were right, we'd be using twice as much energy today.

Most third world countries didn't finish building old-fashioned telephony systems before cell phones took over. Their infrastructure costs are much lower- without an entrenched bureaucracy that wants to have its old investment pay off, there's little incentive to put down copper lines now.

The reason I mention cell phones is that not only did it surprise most analysts, it perfectly illustrates what we could expect to happen as they "leap-frog" our filthy, polluting fossil-fuel addictions. A leap we can't take for the same reasons most of us (well, maybe not here) still use old-fashioned telephone lines.

As far as reducing emissions, technology has more of the solution than politics. Something the/. crowd should take to mean that we have potentially more power than politicians. After all, we know politicians aren't usually clued in about tech:)

Modern nuclear power is cleaner, safer, cheaper and more efficient than it ever was, yet we continue to build toxic, filthy fossil fuel plants. Why?

Because of the relentless, unscientific green PR campaign that's portrayed every nuclear plant as a Chernobyl in waiting. Wind, sun and waves are not always an option, and anti-nuclear campaigning has left no choice but fossil fuels.

FWIW, pressure is also mounting on the Australian Prime Minister to ratify the protocol.

He is arguing that "it would be against the national interest for Australia to sign the Kyoto protocol on climate change". (quote from ABC.net.au)

"Until such time as the major polluters of the world - including the United States and China - are made part of the Kyoto regime, it is next to useless and indeed harmful for a country such as Australia to sign up," he said.

The headline for the article on the ABC site is "Signing Kyoto virtually worthless: PM".

Kyoto will fail sooner than you may think due to Peak Oil [peakoil.net]. Nations will want to get as much energy as they can get and nobody will care if that energy is harmful to environment or not.

Do not forget that 20% of the world population uses up the 86% of the energy of the world. As people in China and India, the two most populous country in the world, want to live like us the price of energy will rise and Kyoto will be ignored.

with some arguing that new technologies such as clean power generation and energy efficient appliances will provide an economic boost

Well, it's pretty clear that it provides an economic boost to the people who are in the business of developing technology. The open question is whether adopting Kyoto (or rather participating in the development of a modified Kyoto). would boost the productivity economy as a whole. A lot depends on the time frame you look at, and assumptions you make.

There's no doubt in my mind that failing to endorse Kyoto means that Europe and Japan will become the technology leaders in emissions reduction, energy efficiency, and possibly even alternative energy technologies. US companies (meaning companies that do most of their business in the US) on the other hand will invest their money in other things, which will presumably pay off in other ways. I think it's fair to say that US companies will lag in these particular areas.

The key question, which nobody can answer for sure, is whether energy efficiency, emissions reduction and alternative energy technologies are going to be more signficant in the long run than the other things that Amercian business are going to be investing in.

I personally think there is a good chance that they will be the most important technogies of the twenty-first century, dwarfing computer technology or even biotechnology. Oil stocks are finite, and our first world life style, upon which all else depends, is very energy intensive. Furthermore companies by their nature look at quarterly or annual results, not the tweny year timeframe this becomes important in. As a person in my mid 40s, I fully expect to live another 40 years, in twenty of which I expect to live on my investments. Therefore I'm very interested in the performance of companies twenty plus years out.

Of course, if you take an even longer viewpoint, it may be that after Europe and Japan invest heavily in first generation technology, the US companies may be able to leapfrog them the way other countries have leapfrogged the US in wireless technology, by investing in a second generation technology without having concern for the existing infrastructure investments. However, (a) I don't expect to be alive long enough to benefit from this and (b) I think it might be doubtful whether this will happen at all.

I don't think the US is poised to maintain its leadership in technology as a whole throughout the twenty-first century. There were circumstances in the twentieth century that made US technolgoical dominance possible, but they are gone now, and there is no serious interest in doing what would be necessary to maintain US leadership.

Kyoto countries account for 55% of 'Greenhouse Emissions' together, and the USA accounts for 36%.

Population wise, the USA makes up 4.6% of the world. I don't know about the combined populations of Kyoto countries but it includes the 3 greatest populations: China, India and the EU which means Kyoto countries make up at least 45% of the worlds population.

In the worlds economy (don't know how this is calculated) the USA makes up 30% and the EU 23%, Japan 14%, China 3.2%. Which puts Kyoto countries' economies at at least 40% of the world

Don't you wonder about motives? So to whos profit is it to buy in to Kyoto? (Sadly, in this world that is the only real question.)

a) + Public perception - Politicians seen as being environmentally proactive ergo more votes.b) + Public perception - Big business moves unsightly production plants offshore allowing them to look squeaky clean at home. Ergo profit.c) + Public perception - Big business has valid excuses to move into 3rd world countries. It is no longer about cheap labour, it is about saving the atmosphere. Ergo profit.

Is there anything beyond Public Perception?

a) Permanent solution - NO. As human population grows so will its effect on the environment. Kyoto is a delaying tactic environmentally BUT a profitable one.b) Near term solution - NO. Will any nation HAVE to reduce its greenhouse gas production? No. Many have promised but a change in administration can easily bring about a cessation of participation.

Irony - The only really honest players have been the U.S. They are clearly worried about economic impact and see that as having a higher priority than the atmosphere. You may not like it but you know where they stand. As for the others, do you really believe their stated motives? If so, see above para.

Funny, I read the Wikipedia article and it doesn't look like there's much of a consensus at all. In fact, it looks like there is so much that we don't know that to definitively state anything about climate change is to speak from one's lowest sphincter.

The American Enterprise has an article [taemag.com] on why the Kyoto deserved to die.
Reasons:
1. Kyoto "Would have exempted China and other developing nations entirely (despite the fact that their growing emissions would have swamped the reductions from the developed nations)."
2. "Long before President Bush acted, this approach had been rejected by the U.S. Senate in a vote of 95-0, which is why President Clinton never submitted the treaty for ratification."

Whether global warming is real should not be an issue. The warming already exhibited trends below the low-end of the IPCC's predictions. It is also far less than the climate change we have experienced in the past: Near East devastation in 1200BC, shifts of the Sahara, end of last Ice Age, etc. The real threat, IMHO, is in cataclysmic disasters. Preventing/mitigating them is part of how we can weather out global warming.

Regional disasters devastating populations are inevitable in most places - tsunamis, asteroids and continental supervolcanoes among others. Cities and whole coastlines should be protected with seawalls, especially coastal industrial zones. The economics of building the walls (they are considerable) are beside the point: How much does it cost to replace Manhattan? Or the whole east coast, if that volcano in the Canary Islands breaks apart? Beckerman in "through green colored glasses" makes the calculation for seawalling Bangladesh to prevent and control their seasonal flooding, it would cost about $16 Billion which is comparable to a good monsoon's damage.

Kyoto is mainly for taxing the industrial countries/companies through carbon trading. Obviously, interests here in the US are against that. (This is bipartisan - the Senate refused to vote on it, 99-0) Kyoto speaks nothing of disaster mitigation, a far, far bigger issue than a 1-degree increase in global temps. If this temperature rise is ongoing/accelerating, those in power would have to reach a consensus on some kind of radical action - it is not going to happen with the entrenched interests worldwide. That leaves it to citizens and corporations, so go ride your bicycle.

Disclaimer: I am one of said scientists. -But I prefer to remain anonymous here.
Please mod down the above two trolls! There most certainly is a scientific consensus about the fact that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is real and will heat up the Earth significantly in the future. True, there is some discussion about how significant the recent global warming is when compared to natural variability (though I will still claim that there is a consensus); but the number of scientists claiming that society

You've got the problem wrong. "Developing' countries are complying, in the manner set down in the treaty. For instance, under the terms of the treaty, China and India do not have to cut any emissions until 2012. It's like running a marathon, but the rules say that the 2nd and 3rd fastest guys are given an automatic 5 mile head start. They're just playing by the rules.

The point is, the US is increasingly acting in ways contrary to the rest of the world. For a country that touts democracy, that's hardly democratic. I didn't vote for Bush, but I recognize that the majority did. So he's the president. The US takes the attitude that "The majority of the population of the World says X, but we know better".

Maybe all those people who voted for Bush know something I don't. And maybe all those countries who think the US is a rouge nation know something we don't. It's not comfortable being a minority, but the US is becoming one.